I never thought Gingrich was serious, and obviously he's not. It appears to be a publicity stunt, just like Donald Trump. But some have argued that Herman Cains campaign is a joke (video) as well.
But this is kinda my point, the GOP would rather support these guys than Romney!

Quote:My prediction? Romney over all is going to have consistently high support, Paul will have his diehards, Cain will drop like a stone in places that have a TV or radio (not Iowa ), and Gingritch will drop back again after fumbling up or something randomly pops up that knocks him back down.

But the question is, if Cain and Gingrich loose their support (and I also believe they will), where will the ~30% support they have go? It's more support than Romney has, and it's obvious they would go for anyone but him. They went from Bachman --> Perry --> Cain -> Gingrich. Romney has not been able to steal any of the shifting votes, and I don't think he will this time either.

Moving on to New Hampshire, this is how it is at the moment:
Romney - 40%
Paul - 17%
Gingrich - 11%
The rest are under 10%. Source

Romney doubles his support compared to Iowa, but both Cain and Gingrich loose much of their support. Paul has approximately the same in both states. But there is a very important point about these numbers;

Quote:While ahead, Romney doesn’t have the race locked up. Sixty- six percent of Romney backers say they could be persuaded to support another candidate, a fluidity in support that is true for other candidates, as well. Those numbers aren’t surprising given New Hampshire’s history of delivering election night upsets.

Paul has said himself, once you are persuaded to join their camp, it's not likely that you'll leave, as is the case with all the other candidates. He has his diehards, as gnomes put it. If Cains support is transferred to Paul, this race could actually get interesting!

Before the primary started I thought Obama had 0 chance of getting relected, but as the GOP primary take shape I'm starting to have doubt.... or rather fear what it would be like if any of the non-Romney guys gets into office (well or Huntsmen , but that seems extremely unlikly).

Romney will be blah but he'll be predictable at least, with most of the rest you fear they'll do something really crazy.

It's hard even for a guy that likes Obama to not say that his 4 year have been a disappointment in almost every respect, he spent almost all his political capita on a ugly healthcare reform that was loaded with earmarks and badly watered down. The economy has been stagnate (though not entirely his fault, he can't avoid at least partial blame after 4 eyars). And he generally appear to not being decisive when he needs and comprimise when he shouldn't (aside from the killing Bin Laden part)

He's a lot like Jimmy Carter in this sense, though Carter had even more bad luck and a very strong opponent, even then though Carter's loss was not as bad as his electoral total suggested (he lost less than 10% in the popular vote.)

Still, Obama at least so far has some points on foreign policy aspects, killing OBL certainly helps a lot, and he's steadily pulling out of Iraq / Afgan, and Libya is mostly seen as a plus so far, in that aspect he's better off than Carter who's final nail in the coffin was really the Iran contra situation.

So a lot does depend on who Obama's up against, and right now it seems underwhelming to say the least, with most being either crazy (Double fence Bachmann) or dumb (Oops Perry) or know abosaluetly nothing about foreign country, let alone affairs (Cain), or flip flopped on everything but Wife and Religion ( Romeney) or even flip flopped on wife and religion (Gingrich) . or simply way outta his class ( Santorum) or simply not being taken seriously (Paul / Huntsmen)

I would actually like Huntsmen, who hasn't been nearly as flip flopping as Romney while having solid resume and is certainly well aquainted internationally and shown ability to work with people from othersie of the aisle, but still. he didn't have much preparation going in and his background is too similar to Romney (even being cousins!)

And how long do you think? I don't think his momentum will last until January 3rd.

As I've said for a very long time now, I think it will be between Romney and Paul in the end. They are the only ones running a serious campaign with stable support and an organization on the ground. All the other have either minimal support, or a quick surge with an even quicker demise. Gingrich is just the last one out. Romney will loose in Iowa, but probably win NH. If he doesn't win NH his campaign is over. So, yes, I see a very interesting plot thickening

Gingrich is different than the others. He's not new to the political field, and he's been a Washington insider for a while. He's a seasoned politician who won't be prone to putting his foot in his mouth. People already know about his baggage, so it's unlikely his campaign will be derailed by sudden scandals. It's already known that most of Herman Cain's support is going to filter down to Gingrich, and this has already started happening.

Expect Gingrich to stick around and pose a serious challenge to Romney. These will be the final two going into the primaries (only a few weeks away now - things will be gelling).

As for Paul - c'mon, no matter what you personally think of the man, he's widely considered a kook by everyone who isn't in completely love with him, which includes the media. And many of his ideas ARE kooky. He's not a serious candidate and doesn't pose a serious threat to anyone. He won't even be considered a serious candidate for VP - he's way too out there and that scares the majority of voters and Washington insiders alike.

____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

Gingrich is no more serious than the others. When he recieved an early bump in the polls this summer, he went on a 2 week vacation. And throughout his whole campaign he never established an organisation, and even failed to get on the ballot in two of the states!

Quote:...because Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn't file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn't qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio.Source

The whole Trump thing could be enough to discredit him at this time. And Christmas times with focus on the family isn't exactly the best association.

As for what happens, I believe the early states will be decisive. Time will tell...

If the Republicans were sane they'd nominate Jon Huntsmen or Mitt Romney, Personally Huntsmen is actually the most electable of the bunch in a general election, bi-partisan credit - no known skeleton - certainly has credentials in both foreign affairs and busniess etc.. (though he is also a silver spoon guy which won't help, but still that would be much easier to deflect than Gingrich's marriage problems.)

Personally though, I think the whole system is messed up, the executive branch is too much hijacked by the legislative branch, to the point where they either be like Obama and doesn't get anything done right or they be like Bush and get things done in rather questionable matters. The Congress / House is too much tied into the local interest, most of them work at the expense of national interest.

In other countries, some systems have "party seats" which are decided by either national popular vote totals or a sepearte ballot, the parties nominate guys without the need of worrying of local interest (as much) but can nominate exceptional folks in their fields (for example outstanding busniess person, academics, professionals, charity folks, former atheletes etc..) . this at least somewhat neutralize the excessive local interest .